Foy v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety And Corrections

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

July 23, 2018

DAVID WADE FOYv.LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

ORDER

JUDGE
SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

This
matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary
Judgment,[1]filed by Defendant, Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections
("Defendant").[2]Plaintiff, David Wade Foy, was permitted
to file an out-of-time Opposition[3] to this motion,
to which Defendant filed a Reply [4] For the reasons which
follow, Defendant's motion shall be GRANTED.

I.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
is an inmate confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary
("LSP") in Angola, Louisiana and in the custody of
Defendant. Plaintiff has brought state and federal claims
against the Defendant alleging that, on February 17, 2016, he
was attacked and injured by fellow inmate Joseph
Davis.[5] Plaintiff further claims that no prison
officials were present during this attack, [6] and he was
provided with delayed and insufficient medical assistance or
treatment following the attack.[7] Thus, Plaintiff alleges Defendant
was deliberately indifferent to his Eighth Amendment
constitutional rights[8] and was also negligent in hiring,
training, and/or supervising prison officials at
LSP.[9]

Plaintiff
originally filed this lawsuit in Louisiana state court, and
the Defendant removed the matter to this Court based on
federal question jurisdiction.[10] Defendant now moves for
summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that he sought administrative relief for the
incident in question via the LSP's Administrative
Grievance Procedure ("ARP"), which is generally a
prerequisite to filing suit.

II.
LAW AND ANALYSIS

A.
Summary Judgment Standard

"The
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
"When assessing whether a dispute to any material fact
exists, we consider all of the evidence in the record but
refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing
the evidence." A party moving for summary judgment
"must 'demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact,' but need not negate the elements of the
nonmovant's case." If the moving party satisfies its
burden, "the non-moving party must show that summary
judgment is inappropriate by setting 'forth specific
facts showing the existence of a genuine issue concerning
every essential component of its case.'" However,
the non-moving party's burden "is not satisfied with
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by
conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by
only a scintilla of evidence."

Notably,
"[a] genuine issue of material fact exists, 'if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.'" All reasonable
factual inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.
However, "[t]he Court has no duty to search the record
for material fact issues. Rather, the party opposing the
summary judgment is required to identify specific evidence in
the record and to articulate precisely how this evidence
supports his claim." "Conclusory allegations
unsupported by specific facts ... will not prevent the award
of summary judgment; 'the plaintiff [can]not rest on his
allegations ... to get to a jury without any
"significant probative evidence tending to support the
complaint."'"

B.
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The
Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") prohibits
actions under Section 1983 by inmates until "such
administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted."[11] The purpose of the exhaustion
requirement is to give an agency "an opportunity to
correct its own mistakes with respect to the programs it
administers before it is haled into federal court" and
to encourage the efficient resolution of
claims.[12]

In
Louisiana, an inmate must follow a two-step Administrative
Remedy Procedure ("ARP") process to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit in federal
court.[13]An inmate initiates the ARP process by
completing a request for administrative remedy or writing a
letter to the warden.[14] An ARP screening officer screens the
inmate's request and either accepts the request into the
first-step or rejects it for one of ten enumerated
reasons.[15] If a request is accepted, the warden
must respond on a first-step response form within forty (40)
days of receipt of the request.[16] If the inmate is not
satisfied with the response, he may proceed to the
second-step of the ARP process by appealing to the Secretary
of the Department of Corrections ("DOC Secretary")
using a space provided on the first-step response
form.[17] The DOC Secretary is then required to
issue a response within forty-five (45) days from the date
the request is received utilizing a second-step response
form.[18] The expiration of any response time
limits entitles the inmate to move to the next step in the
process.[19]

Defendant
moves for summary judgment because Plaintiff has failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as required by law. In
opposition to Defendant's motion, Plaintiff admits he did
not utilize the ARP process for two reasons: first, Plaintiff
contends the LSP ARP process is a "dead end" as set
forth in Ross v. Blake;[20] second, Plaintiff
contends his physical and mental injuries precluded his
ability to utilize the ARP process. The Court will address
each argument in turn.

1.
"Dead End" The exhaustion requirement of
the PLRA hinges on the availability of administrative
remedies.[21] Although a grievance procedure may be
officially on the books, such remedies may be deemed
unavailable if, in practice, it prevents an inmate from
seeking redress.[22] As the United States Supreme Court
explained in Ross, "an inmate is required to
exhaust those, but only those, grievance procedures that are
'capable of use' to obtain 'some relief for the
action complained of.'"[23] The Court recognized that
a grievance procedure is unavailable when it "operates
as a simple dead end-with officers unable or consistently
unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved
inmates."[24]

The
Ross court outlined three limited circumstances in
which administrative remedies are deemed unavailable under
the PLRA: (1) When the administrative procedure
"operates as a simple dead end - with officers unable or
unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates";
(2) When the administrative scheme is so opaque that it is
"essentially unknowable" and "no ordinary
prisoner can discern or navigate it"; and (3)
"[W]hen prison administrators thwart inmates from taking
advantage of a grievance process through machination,
misrepresentation, or intimidation."[25]

Plaintiff
argues that the LSP grievance procedure is a "dead
end" because he was denied relief in previous, unrelated
grievances. Defendant contends Plaintiff has not argued or
provided any summary judgment evidence that LSP prison policy
barred him or otherwise prohibited him from filing a
grievance for the incident in question. Further, Defendant
argues Plaintiff's claims do not fit within the
PRLA's textual exception to the mandatory exhaustion
recognized in Ross.

The
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a
genuine issue of fact regarding the availability of the ARP
process to him for this incident. As the Fifth Circuit
explained: "it is not for the courts to inquire whether
administrative procedures 'satisfy "minimum
acceptable standards" of fairness and
effectiveness.'[26] Under § 1997e(a), a prisoner must
exhaust such administrative remedies as are
'available,' whatever they may
be."[27] Thus, if a prisoner has failed to
exhaust all available administrative remedies, dismissal is
appropriate.[28] Clearly, Plaintiff's dissatisfaction
with the denial of previous grievances does not render
grievance relief "unavailable" under Ross.

Further,
Defendant is correct that Plaintiff's claim does not fall
within the list of matters that are not appealable through
its grievance procedure. Louisiana's prisoner grievance
system is described in the state's Administrative Code.
It explicitly lists matters that are not appealable through
the ARP process as set forth below:

iv. The
following matters shall not be appealable through this
administrative remedy procedure:

(a), court decisions and pending criminal matters over which
the department has no control or jurisdiction;

(b). Board of Pardons and Parole decisions (under Louisiana
law, these decisions are discretionary and may ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.